Orissa High Court
S.D.O.(Electrical.) vs Arun Kadmawala .... Opposite Party on 14 May, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.13233 of 2025
S.D.O.(Electrical.), No.1 Elect. Sub- .... Petitioners
Division, Rourkela Sadar, TPWODL and
others
Mr. P. K. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
Arun Kadmawala .... Opposite Party
None
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order 14.05.2025
No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. No notice is issued to the opposite party as the matter is
disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioners assailing the
impugned judgment dated 21st March, 2025 at Annexure-10 as
without jurisdiction in view of the decision of the Apex Court in
U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others Vrs. Anis Ahmad AIR
2013 SC 1766.
4. In course of hearing, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the challenge to the assessment order is not
maintainable but then, there was no any preliminary issue framed
by learned DCDRC, Sundergarh-II. That apart, according to Mr.
Tripathy, learned counsel, the complaint was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 18th November, 2023 as per Annexure-8 but it was
restored to file immediately thereafter but the same is not
permissible in view of the Apex Court decision in Rajeev Hitendra
Pathak and others Vrs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and others
MANU/SC/0969/2011. In fact, in the written note of submission
filed before the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela, such an objection was raised
with a plea that there is clear violation of the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since learned Commission, for that
matter, does not have the jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte
orders suo motu.
5. On a reading of the decision in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak
(supra), the Court finds that the Apex Court held and observed that
the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive their power
from the express provisions of the Statute and the District Forums
and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set
aside ex-parte orders and powers of review and the powers which
have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be exercised.
Having regard to the above settled law and the fact that, such a
plea was taken before the learned DCDRC, Sundergarh-II, Rourkela
as made to appear to Annexure-9 and that apart, jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint was also questioned on the ground that the
assessment order cannot be challenged under the Act, the Court is of
the view that the impugned judgment as at Annexure-10 in CC
No.18 of 2018 is liable to be interfered and set aside with remand
of the matter for a fresh consideration and disposal of the complaint
according to law.
6. Hence, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed.
Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 21st March, 2025 in
CC No.18 of 2018 at Annexure-10 is hereby set aside with a
direction as to restoration of the complaint for its disposal taking
into account the objection of the petitioners and observations made
hereinabove. In the circumstances, however, there is no order as to
costs.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
TUDU
